We’re neck deep in the run-up to Primary Season. On the national scene, the Republican horse-race for the presidential nomination has been something of a circus. No less than half the field of candidates have had a turn carrying the banner of “front-runner”. This “flavor of the week” elevation and deflation of the candidates is exhausting both to the voters and the office-seekers! Voters are confused, and “undecided” garners more votes than any single candidate! Primary contests for House and Senate seats and even some lesser state and local offices have been no less contentious and chaotic. There must be a way to make sense of it all and select the best choice of candidate to represent our viewpoints!

In today’s educational and political paradigm, where certain people propose to indoctrinate you with what to think rather than train you how to think – and encourage you to do so; it is difficult to even set a criterion by which to analyze and evaluate the various options.

Therefore, I propose to do just that. I will not promote any particular idea or candidate over another here. This method will work for everyone regardless of your political ideology. It will help you analyze how well a candidate represents YOUR views and interestes – not mine. And it can apply outside of politics. It can, for example, be used in hiring decisions when selecting between candidates for a job!

The candidate should be evaluated against the “6 Ps”: Platform, Positions, Policy, Plan,Past Performance and Personal Integrity and Character.

This will help quantify the major questions you need asked and answered: What are his guiding principles? What’s his philosophy? How will he approach implementing it? How’s he done in the past? Can I trust him? (Please assign gender neutrality to the male pronouns – it’s tedious to keep specifying him/her)

You want to understand the candidate’s philosophy, his strategic plan, and his tactical plan.

First, you want to understand where the candidate’s coming from. What’s his philosophy? His core values. What are the non-negotiables for him? What’s his motivation? Understanding his Platform and Positions will give insight here. What is he FIRM on, and where is he “squishy”? Is he uncompromising or pragmatic, and in his pragmatism, will he negotiate away YOUR non-negotiables?

Next, you want to understand what he intends to do with that philosophy! What are the Policies he seeks to pursue and what is his Plan to implement them? Does it make sense to you? Does it seem workable to you. Can you support it? Can you understand it?

What’s the candidate’s track record? How’s he done at what he’s attempted before? As any investment’s prospectus will tell you “past performance is not a guarantee of future results”… however it is a pretty good indicator – especially when used to compare between the various choices!

Finally, character counts! As we learned from the Clinton Era, there are those who will support and defend an individual no matter what he does, as long as he espouses their political view. But if we, as a people, don’t hold our leaders to a certain standard of integrity and character, we will all reap the consequences. No matter how rhetorically “pure” a candidate is on the political issues of the day – if he will compromise his personal integrity, there is no reason to believe he’ll hold fast to a political philosophy and not sell it out for self-interest. Therefore, we must demand from our elected officials a higher standard of character.

Will there be a perfect candidate for you? Only if you yourself are running! Everyone has their own warts. Everyone will have some area of disagreement, whether philosophically, strategically or tactically. But you can analyze the field and put your support with the candidate who most closely represents your views and interests. This method will simply help you logically determine which of the available candidates is closest.

Once you make that determination, go all in. Support your candidate. Remember, however, that once the primaries are over and one candidate has prevailed, he may or may not be your first choice. If your candidate fails to win the nomination, don’t be a “sour grapes” voter and sit out the general election. Your second, third or even fourth choice in the primary still probably represents your interests and values better than the opposition in the general election

I have determined the time has come to examine the last few decades of American History, do some analysis, and ask some poignant questions to allow the reader to draw some conclusions and to question some presumptions.

Let’s start with the 60s. A time when racism was common, segregation, discrimination and bigotry were institutional, and “the man” truly was keeping the black community down.

But “the man” wasn’t your typical right-wing conservative! It was primarily the DEMOCRATS!

The early civil right movement was supported and encouraged by the GOP and conservatives. Civil rights legislation was OPPOSED and even filibustered not by those evil right-wing conservatives, but by the LEFT WING Democrats! Bull Connor, whose name is practically synonymous with racism and civil-rights opposition, was not only a Democrat; he was Democratic National Committeeman for Alabama! He ran for Governor on the Democrat ticket. He led the Alabama delegation to the 1948 Democratic National Convention to walk out over a civil-rights plank in the platform!

Another iconic Democrat, George Wallace, served as Governor of Alabama. In his INAUGURAL SPEECH he made the following statement: “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”

Lyndon Johnson is hailed today as a liberal pioneer and champion of civil rights, but Johnson himself was a notorious racist and no lover of our black brethren. He did, however, view them as a malleable resource. He did not oppose civil rights legislation (which, by the way, was supported by the GOP and opposed by many democrats, and would never have passed without the GOP). Instead he supported it as a means of securing power for Democrats. He is famously quoted as saying “I’ll have these (n-words) voting Democrat for the next 100 years!” He was right! For the last half of that predicted century – the black community has been a monolithic voting bloc, supporting democrats about 97%.

How’s that workin’ out for ya?

Johnson doubled down on Civil Rights – sensible, reasonable, moral and appropriate legislation – and ushered in the “War on Poverty”.

Vastly expanding on FDR’s New Deal Welfare State, Johnson ushered in a whole new culture, creating generational dependency and a paradigm of the entitlement mentality.

By providing a bare subsistence, but requiring nothing from the recipients; by subsidizing out of wedlock childbearing; by setting the “soft bigotry of low expectations”; a new “system” was created and the “underprivileged” soon learned the rules of the game to receive a meager but adequate living at government expense… without having to learn, earn or contribute to their own subsistence. Add to this the deference to the Educational Cabal which promoted the teaching unions and denied vouchers and school choice, and the urban schools became cesspools where thriving educationally was virtually impossible. A new dependency class was born – and could be counted on to vote for their “benefactors”. How’s that workin’ out for ya?

The “war on poverty” is lost! More people live near or below the poverty line than when the programs were started. And for the record, there are as many poor whites as blacks, gaming the same system. There are as many whites on assistance or food stamps today as blacks. The “dependency culture” is not melanin specific!

Now let’s look at the 70s

Carter instituted the “Community Reinvestment Act” – ostensibly ending the banking practice of “redlining” which essentially declared entire neighborhoods to be bad loan risks. A laudable purpose… but the real result of the Act was to force banks to abandon sound underwriting principles and risk assessment, and to make unwise loans to those who were at high risk of default. This was the beginning of the “Sub Prime” Housing Debacle!

Nevermind that Carter’s other leftist policies drove the country to a “malaise” that brought us to the brink of another 30s style depression. The CRA (and Clinton’s doubling down on it under the direction of ACORN in the 90s) set in motion the mortgage crisis, the Fannie/Freddie crisis, the banking crisis and ultimately all the economic woes currently being blamed on George Bush!

So how’s THAT workin’ out for ya?

The 80s saw a brief respite! Reagan’s tax cuts DOUBLED revenues and spurred economic growth unparalleled in at least 30 years! Despite the Tip O’Neal Congress increasing spending $1.84 for every dollar in new revenue, thus creating the so-called “Reagan Deficits”… the economy generally thrived and expanded. Unemployment was down. Interest rates came down. Inflation came down. Standards of living went up. There was optimism in America.

Are you old enough to remember? Do you miss those days?

The 90s were a mixed bag. Clinton strengthened and expanded the Community Reinvestment Act – placing even more odious regulations on the banks and essentially telling them they MUST make loans to people who can’t afford them. The mentality that homeownership is a right superseded the notion that Americans have a right to purchase any home they can afford! The stage was set for collapse, and collapse it did in the latter half of Bush’s 2nd term. But remember that it was the Bush Administration and the GOP in Congress who raised the red flag in 2005, with the Fannie Freddie Hearings (check ‘em out on YouTube!) while the powerful Dems – Dodd, Frank, Waters, Clay etc. all stood up to defend Fannie/Freddie and it’s leadership. “Nope, no problems here! Nothing to see here, folks, move along. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

How’s THAT workin’ out for ya?

Still there was a silver lining to the 90s. In 1994 the Gingrich Revolution and the Contract With America swept the GOP into power in the Congress. With Newt at the helm, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget and the first actual SURPLUSSES in 50 years – which of course Clinton took credit for, and which the complicit press has turned into accepted fact over the subsequent decade! The positive numbers continued until 9/11 and the War on Terror.

The millennial decade is largely misunderstood. Bush is touted by the left as the worst president ever. They blame him and the wars for our economic difficulties at the end of his presidency. But the reality is different from the narrative.

It’s true that the dot-com bubble burst, 9/11 and the wars took a toll on the economy. We fell from surplus to deficit as we ramped up military action.

Still, Bush’s WORST deficit in his first 6 years (while he had a GOP Congress) was around $430 Billion in 2003. Yup, His WORST deficit was around half the cost of the Obama Stimulus alone! Still, that was a big number for its time. So what did Bush do? He instituted the Bush Tax Cuts that are once again in the news today! The result? 3 consecutive years of reducing deficits! The last deficit with a GOP Congress, the deficit was cut to only $120 Billion, a reduction of nearly 2/3 in 3 years. Still, six years into his presidency, Bush was soundly and rightly criticized four raising our 4 Trillion Dollar National Debt by 50% to 6 Trillion. And the reins of Congress were turned over to Pelosi/Reid. By the time Obama took office, Pelosi/Reid had added a TRILLION to our deficit, and 3 more Trillion to the Debt! NOTICE that in 2 years Pelosi and Company added 3 Trillion, while it took Bush and the GOP 6 years to add 2 Trillion.

So Obama comes into office with a 9 Trillion dollar debt. In his time occupying the White House, we’ve seen the debt balloon from 9 Trillion to 15 Trillion… more than a 50% growth in 3 years!

How’s THAT workin’ out for ya?

Are you starting to notice a pattern here?

It’s been said that if you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something you get more of it. Why, then, do we tax success and subsidize failure?

There are few opportunities for legislation that holds the prospect of gain for EVERYONE who supports it, regardless of party or ideology – but amazingly, the repeal of ObamaCare offers that very opportunity, if our elected officials would but examine the possibilities!!

First and foremost, the majority of America rejects ObamaCare and supports its repeal. So you’ve got popular support. For the Democrats, that majority thing ought to be a biggie. After all, they’re all about direct democracy, aren’t they? Majority rules, right?

But as I’ve been quick to point out on many occasions, not everything that’s popular is right, and not everything that’s right is popular, so let’s look at some other motivations that might move our members of Congress to action.

Dems should consider that ObamaCare is about to undergo a major review by the Supreme Court. Even with Kagan participating and not (properly) recusing herself from the case – there is a very strong possibility that at least some part of ObamaCare will be struck down – if not in its entirety! This would deal a major blow to the party that rammed it through without a single GOP vote, after arm twisting and bribery by Pelosi, generally UNREAD, which had to be PASSED so we could know what’s in it! Not only was it bad law, passed in an unscrupulous manner against the will of the people, but SCOTUS will also give the slap of unconstitutionality to at least part of it. That stings.

Why not get out in front of this and defuse it by repealing ObamaCare and making a SCOTUS review moot?

And likewise, GOP, what if SCOTUS only finds PART of ObamaCare unconstitutional? Do you want to HAVE to live with any part they find legit enough not to strike down? Are you confident that Kennedy will hang tough with the conservatives on the Court ENOUGH to do away with ObamaCare? What kind of mixed bag of upheld and struck down provisions might we have to contend with?

But hey, Republicans, here’s the BEST reason to move on repeal. YOU PROMISED TO! You were ELECTED to! The whole point of the Mid-Term Elections was to put you in a position to. And you’ve forgotten all about it. That will not sit well come primary season!

Back to the Dems. Since you took the reins of Congress in January 2007, we watched the deficit climb from 120 Billion at the end of GOP control of Congress, to nearly 15 times that amount at 1.7 Trillion. We watched the National debt climb from 6 Trillion after 6 years of Bush and 2 wars to nearly 14 Trillion in 4 years of Pelosi/Reid. So whatever Bush Bashing you may do, and however much you seek to blame Bush and say Obama INHERITED his problems… the American People understand that you are the party of spending with reckless abandon. A reality, and a perception you may do well to strive to reverse!

The Super-Committee is charged with finding a Trillion in cuts over 10 years. A pittance! That’s really only 100 Billion a year… and they can’t do it! If the automatic cuts kick in, the military will be slashed, and lefty ideologues aside (as they represent only around 20% of the population) the people of America DO NOT want to see the military slashed by 500 Billion!

Repealing ObamaCare will save TRILLIONS over a decade. All by itself. Your precious spending programs don’t even have to be touched, and you can claim victory in achieving the spending reduction!

For the GOP, repealing ObamaCare is a victory fiscally, and ideologically, protecting individual rights, reigning in an egregious over-reach by the federal oligarchy.

For all of you. Repeal would result in an economic recovery far exceeding the wildest dreams or expectations of any program or stimulus the Administration has considered, offered or implemented! Companies, freed from the shackles of ObamaCare, would loosen the hiring constraints. Jobs, production, GDP and tax revenues would all climb – and true to Reagan’s quote… a rising tide does indeed lift all boats. And you could all claim credit for stimulating the economy out of the worst “recession” (depression) in our lifetimes at least!

Back to the Dems. Are you REALLY supportive of affordable healthcare for people? Then realize how many companies are ready to ABANDON providing care when ObamaCare is fully implemented!! I know many of you are idealogically committed to Single-Payer healthcare, and such a collapse of the private and employer provided market would leave a vacuum that you’d feel compelled to fill with Government care… but America resoundingly doesn’t want it! Given the choice between the private enterprise Hospitals like Barnes, Mayo, Mt Sinai, or Hopkins, and government care like say, a VA hospital, which do you think most Americans would opt for? Even if they pay for private insurance?

If ObamaCare is SO GOOD for people, why the waivers for so many FOD’s (Friends of Democrats)? And why is Congress exempt?

ObamaCare is a boondoggle. It’s an embarrassment to the Dems and CAUSED the massacre of 2010. It’s impractical. It’s unsustainable. And eliminating it will save TRILLIONS.

Truly. WHAT are y’all waiting for? How about a nice Christmas present THIS year? America said THANK YOU for Pelosi’s Christmas Present of 2009 with the November 2010 elections. Repeal for Christmas 2011 would be a present America would TRULY appreciate!

The big story in the GOP race for the presidential nomination for the last couple months has been Herman Cain. From his meteoric rise to the top as Conservatives were quickly disenchanted with Rick Perry, to the wall-to-wall coverage of sexual harassment allegations; Herman Cain has been propelled into the public consciousness. So let’s take a look.

Cain’s background is impressive. Born during a time when racial prejudice was the norm, to a mother who worked as a cleaning woman and a father who held down three jobs (janitor, barber and chauffer) just to make ends meet, Cain applied himself to education and earned a degree in Mathematics. Yes, Mathematics – not political science, sociology, or Liberal Arts. The man understands MATH. Probably a good idea for one who seeks the presidency at a time of trillion dollar deficits and massive debt!

From there he went on to earn a Masters Degree in Computer Science. He understands technology - another good idea for one aspiring to lead the nation in the age of tablet PCs, smart-phones, Facebook and Twitter.

Parts of his business career are well known. His legendary leadership of Godfathers Pizza, where his stint as CEO saved the company; and his term on the board of directors at the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank are fairly common knowledge. His suddenly controversial time as CEO of the National Restaurant Association is also becoming well known.

Lesser known, perhaps, are his service with the Navy, where he designed Fire Control Systems; a time working for Coca Cola, and his Vice Presidency of Pillsbury. He also has a radio program and writes as a columnist.

Cain’s prowess as a businessman is undeniable. He understands markets, economics, problem solving, power delegation, responsibility and accountability. His leadership skills are unassailable.

Political wonks may remember, but it bears pointing out to the public at large that during Herman Cain’s tenure as CEO of the National Restaurant Association, he attended a televised Town Hall meeting where Bill Clinton was defending his proposed healthcare reform, later to be known as “HillaryCare”. Clinton was claiming that his reform would not harm American business owners. Cain spoke up, saying, “Quite honestly, Mr. President, your calculations are incorrect. In the competitive marketplace, it simply doesn’t work that way.”

Cain’s words resonated through the nation, and Newsweek later credited him as the “primary saboteur” of HillaryCare.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Cain has a long history of standing up AGAINST government healthcare. This took place in 1994.

So what of these harassment allegations?

Only Herman Cain and the accusers know exactly what took place… but we can look objectively at what we do know and try to make sense of it.

The allegations were made in 1998. The Restaurant Association settled with the 2 women with one getting around $30,000 and the other around $45,000, according to the Politico. This represented a year’s salary. No civil action was ever brought against Cain personally.

To anyone familiar with business or with the legal system, making a settlement payout, especially one so small – relatively speaking – is certainly not prima facie evidence that an allegation has merit! It’s nuisance insurance. Companies will often settle such claims rather than invest time and expense in fighting off spurious complaints and allegations. It’s part of the cost of doing business and if you investigate any company of size, or any CEO of prominence, you’ll probably find somewhere, sometime, that they settled a meritless claim against them!

But let’s leave aside the he-said, she-said for a time. It is much more interesting and telling to analyze the REACTIONS to these allegations coming to light.

Here we see Herman Cain, a successful black CONSERVATIVE man, and a rising star politically who could very well take a position of power a year from now.

Black conservatism is on the rise, and threatens the very fabric of the Democrat demographic. Successful black conservatives run counter to the narrative that empowers the Left: that blacks are oppressed and unable to achieve apart from white liberal beneficence! That blacks need liberals to “take care of them”. Blacks are indoctrinated to believe that success is impossible – unless that success comes from pimping the very dependence and victimhood that empowers the left… like Jackson, Sharpton and Obama! But let a black man apply conservative principles and attain success, and he will become a target. While no black man CAN succeed on the Democrat’s plantation of enforced dependency… no black man may be allowed to succeed if they’re OFF that plantation! Especially if that success leads to prominence, public attention, or worse – political power!

Hearken back to the early 90s and Clarence Thomas!

Remember that the Anita Hill allegations were based on little more than a coke can – and a hair described as “pubic” but which could easily have fallen innocently off the head of a black man. Coarse curly hair may have a “pubic” association in the white mind… but could be found on the bathroom sink of most any black man who combs his hair or trims his beard in front of a mirror!

Still, the Left and their willing accomplices in the media did everything they could to turn this allegation into the “borking” of Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court. Not because it had any bearing whatsoever on his character, but because they saw it as a weapon to use to derail a black conservative on his way to a position of power and influence.

The duplicity and hypocrisy of the left is astoundingly striking when it comes to such allegations as those leveled against Thomas and Cain.

On such flimsy evidence as a Coke can or a hand gesture and comment about one’s height, the entire character of a man is held in question… yet water was carried for a John Edwards until the NATIONAL ENQUIRER did the journalistic job the mainstream press WOULDN’T do and presented incontrovertible evidence that finally proved his downfall. And the left went so far as to REDEFINE SEX in defense of Bill Clinton, when there was a stained blue dress as evidence of his misdeeds in the very Oval Office!

The attempt to derail the Cain Train with these allegations may well backfire, as the American People are seeing through the dirty politics. Some free advice to those who oppose a Cain presidency (whether on the left or the right): If you find fault with his policies, platform, plan or proposals, then debate those issues on their merits. But the politics of personal destruction has seen its heyday and it has come and gone. The American people are tired of it, and will punish the purveyors of it with their votes.

A leftist caller into a morning talk-show that is part of my daily drive was spouting the “no skin off their back” class envy line about the “Buffett Rule” and soaking the rich. Aside from simply annoying me with his ignorance, I found myself realizing that these people who buy into the Class Envy story line will not be swayed by any of the arguments of the unfairness of the excessive tax burden borne by the top income earners. They pull out their “world’s smallest violin” and play “Cry Me a River”. Their attitude is, “They can afford it.” Or, “They’ve still got plenty, AFTER taxes.”

So persuading these people must take another tack. We must convince them of two truths: 1) the so called “Buffett Rule” will hurt not only the rich, but everyone, including them; and 2) The math DOESN’T work!

The big push from the administration is that Capital Gains rates are lower than the Income Tax Rate of the middle class, so they want to raise the Capital Gains Tax Rate. Of course, there is a very good reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate… but that’s not the focus here. Let’s just stick to our two primary premises!

Raising Capital Gains rates affects not only the Wealthy… but EVERYONE who has investment income! If you have an IRA, 401K, Pension, mutual fund or any other investment – it will affect you. Raising Capital Gains tax rates means your retirement fund will not have as big a nest egg for you when you retire. That’s not the fat cats being hurt… it’s YOU, or it’s your PARENTS. It’s the guy who worked hard all his life and seeks to retire and live on the fruits of his labor. The less that a middle class family can acquire toward retirement during their earning years, the more dependent they will be on Social Security or other Government Largesse… which seems to be exactly the goal of the Leftists, and exactly the cause of our economic demise!

The mantra of the Left is that no matter how much the wealthy pay, they aren’t paying their “fair share”. The upper income earners do pay the lions share, shouldering on the order of 70% of the total tax burden while half of America has NO income tax liability and a goodly portion reap a refund they didn’t pay into via refundable credits – meaning that even if they paid NOTHING IN AT ALL they can still get a “refund” (though a “refund” is a misnomer implying return of an OVER PAYMENT! Just how is contributing NOTHING an overpayment?)

According to the latest Government Figures, the earnings total of ALL people in the USA was around 7.8 Trillion Dollars a year.

Government already spends about half of that, with our 3.5+ Trillion Dollar “budget” (well, we haven’t actually PASSED a budget in over 3 years… but that’s a technicality!)

Obama and Co want to raise that level to $5 Trillion, with the Trillion and a Half NEW spending he’s proposing! So, more than 5/8th of ALL MONEY goes thru Government hands??

They scoffed when conservatives warned that the Left sought to take over the entire economy. The laughed and poo-pooed when we warned that the move toward Government Healthcare was a takeover of 1/6 of the economy. They ignored when the government "nationalized" 2/3 of our auto industry and threatened to "socialize... er... er... take over" the oil industry. But here you go! Government now passes almost half of ALL money in the economy thru it's hands... and obama's shooting for over 60%!

And, of course, the “wealthy” are supposed to foot the bill! Obama says that’s not “Class Warfare” but it’s “Math”!

The math doesn’t work! The “Rich” footing the bill is a concept that doesn’t FIT the bill!!

Of the 7.8 Trillion earned by ALL Americans, only 17.5% of that total, or about 1.37 Trillion was earned by those making $200K or more a year!!

So, confiscating every dollar earned by every person making 200K a year or more wouldn’t even meet our current deficit of $1.6 Trillion! In fact, since these people ALREADY PAY taxes on this money, confiscating it all would only net about $1Trillion in additional revenue! Well, ONCE anyway, as there would be no business, no jobs and no economy at all if they did implement such a confiscation!

The fact is, and always has been, that the profligate SPENDING problem in Government can’t be solved by revenue! Reagan DOUBLED revenues, yet all we hear about are the “Reagan Deficits” – more properly dubbed the Tip O’Neal deficits as Reagan’s reasonable budgets were pronounced “dead on arrival” and the O’Neal congress spent $1.84 in new spending for every dollar in new revenue Reagan’s tax cuts generated!

The irrefutable, uncomfortable truth is that Government simply spends too much!

Bush’s worst deficit with a GOP congress was in 2003, at around $420 Billion. That’s half the cost of Obama’s first failed stimulus! The 2003 tax cuts REDUCED the deficit each year thereafter until the reins of power passed to Pelosi/Reid in 2007. But the deficit was reduced to $120 Billion when that baton was passed! THAT’s the deficit Pelosi/Reid inherited! They also inherited a Triple A credit rating and a budget around 2 Trillion a year.

In their 4 years in power, the deficit ballooned to 14 or 15 times that 2006 deficit. Our spending grew from 2 Trillion to 3 and a half Trillion, and Obama would have it at 5 Trillion!

The issue is not, and never will be a matter of Government not appropriating enough money. It is, was, and ever will be the reckless spending of those who wish to buy votes, and retire before the bill comes due.

Margaret Thatcher famously stated that the problem with Socialism is that at some point you run out of other people’s money. We see that happening throughout Socialist Europe. And we have Obama, Pelosi and Reid for bringing the USA to that point now. Is it any wonder that Standard and Poor downgraded our credit? Who still has “full faith” in the credit of the USA?

This week I heard yet another black liberal caller to a conservative radio program who felt “offended” that there was so much opposition to “America’s First Black President.” As I listened, (frustrated that I couldn’t just call and debate this guy since I was in the parking lot about to walk into my day-job) I began to think just how racist the caller’s line of thinking was! He was defending the President based SOLEY on his race. Irrespective of the President’s policies, plan, purpose or performance – he was deemed unassailable because he is black. But is he?

Does the caller not realize that there is the same opposition to these policies when they’re put forth by the white Pelosi, the white Reid, the white Barney Frank, the white Dick Durbin etc?

Is Obama immune from criticism by virtue of his dark skin? Is it impossible for a black president to suck? Does the caller not realize that Obama is half white, and his other half is 7/8 north African Arab (think Ghaddafi not Mandella)? Does he identify with the 1/16 of Obama’s Black African Roots when there is virtually no “slave blood” in Obama?

In their zeal to put a man of color… ANY man of color… into the White House, Black America has helped elect THIS man to the presidency. And America is not the better for it.

Meanwhile, some black elected officials have been making some remarkable public statements.

Congressional Black Caucus member Andre Carson tells us the Tea Party wants to see blacks hanging from trees! Not only a ridiculously false assertion, but an incendiary one intended to incite unrest and possible violence!

And then there’s that brilliant Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee, who claimed that the House was “complicating” the debt ceiling talks because Obama was black.

Maxine Waters tells us that the Tea Party is racist, and that they can “go to hell”. This coming from the Marxist that let the cat out of the back in May of 2008 when she admitted the intent to “socialize” the oil industry… and who most recently threatened banks to modify loans for people who can’t afford them or she would have the Gubmit “tax them out of existence”.

Someone should remind Ms Waters of that pesky document, the Constitution, which was designed to limit the powers of the federal government! Article 1, Section 9 prohibits something called a “Bill of Attainder”. In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine, a tax, or term of imprisonment). So singling out banks for special tax punishment would be unconstitutional!

The fact of the matter is that the race card is played because historically it worked. Shouting “racist” ended the debate and sent the opposition scurrying for cover, despite the accusation being entirely unfounded.

But we are in a new paradigm! We have an environment today where a black man not only theoretically CAN, but in fact HAS been elected President; where a black man like Herman Cain can serve as Chairman of a bank, and CEO of a major Pizza chain; where blacks truly have attained Dr. King’s dream of being judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin! Blacks who avail themselves of educational opportunities, who apply themselves to acquiring and developing marketable skills, are able to advance themselves as well as whites who do the same. And Americans are awakening to the agenda of the race-baiters as advancing their own interests and not that of the black community at large! The race-card is becoming passé. It’s an anachronism; an archaic curiosity. It’s as relevant as a buggy whip in a Chevy dealership!

Sadly, for those who have never developed a legitimate case with which to debate their failed policies in the arena of ideas… the Race Card is the only card in their hand. Sadly for them, it is no longer trump, it is no longer the wild-card. Resorting to playing the race-card is no longer seen as striking from a position of strength – it is viewed as an act of desperation by one without any other resource. And that view is accurate.

Democratic Party Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz famously stated last May that “We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery, not go back to the policies of the past under the Bush administration that put us in the ditch in the first place,” Well, the first part of that was true! They own the economy! And they have since America foolishly entrusted Congress to the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid back in 2006!

We’ll discuss the remainder of Wasserman Schulz’ statement in a moment… but first let’s establish a little historical background.

George Bush took office in January 2001 with a National Debt of 4 Trillion Dollars. The economy was riding the bubbles of the tech explosion and the easy money in the housing market. Less than a year later, we experienced the dot-com bust and the attacks of 9-11. Remember that 9-11 was a DIRECT assault on our economy – the attack was directed at the WORLD TRADE CENTER… both a symbolic and a de-facto heart of our world commerce. We naturally tend to focus on the loss of life and property, and well we should. But the economic impact of that attack was enormous as well.

So we went to war.

How many times have you heard how military spending and Bush’s wars have bankrupted us? Undoubtedly so many you can’t put a number to it! But let’s examine the facts.

Remember the 87 billion dollars that John Kerry balked about… voting for it before voting against it back in 2004? That was to fund those 2 wars for a year! Is 87 billion dollars a lot of money? Hell yes! But we spent less on both wars in a decade than Obama’s stimulus cost us in one year! So a little perspective, please!

But I digress.

The economy took a hit after 9/11, and our deficit climbed. By 2003 it had soared to 420 billion dollars. While a deficit that size would be a major blessing today, at the time it was historically large! So what did George Bush do?

TAX CUTS!

And the left went nuts. But the tax cuts did what tax cuts always do; revenues increased! The deficit fell each of the following 3 years until; in 2006 the deficit was reduced from a high of 450 billion in 2003 by more than 2/3 to 120 billion.

In 2004, Congressional Republicans began hearings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and started waving red flags about the sub-prime mortgage threat. They were demanding MORE oversight and regulation of these entities and warned of the dangers of forcing lending institutions to make home loans to people who can’t afford them.

Who came to the defense of Fannie and Freddie, claiming there were no problems and there’s “nothing to see here”? Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters etc!

The Democrats created the problem with Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Under guise of “encouraging” lending institutions to “meet the needs” of home borrowers in “moderate income areas”… this act empowered ACORN and other community organizing groups to pressure banks into making ill advised loans to people who simply would never be able to repay them. You may wish to read about the act here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

All sorts of new lending vehicles were created. Interest only loans? How is that different from rent? One never gains any equity! Balloon notes? Get people into the house with an affordable payment, only to watch it skyrocket out of sight in a few years?

The Community Reinvestment Act was revisited by Clinton and even more regulations were placed on the banks. The bubble was expanding faster now, and would soon burst.

Then we handed the reins of Congress, and the purse-strings, to Pelosi and Reid. Bush had 2 years of his term remaining. And yes, we were driven into the ditch during those 2 years. But it wasn’t Bush that was driving… it was Pelosi and Reid!

In their first year, they tripled the deficit to 450 billion… 30 billion more than Bush’s worst deficit with a GOP congress. And in their 2ndyear they tripled that to 1.3 Trillion dollars! (More than 10 times the 2006 deficit!) They added 3 trillion to the debt in just 2 years, so Bush left office with a 9 trillion dollar debt.

Bush had added 2 trillion with a GOP Congress in his first 6 years. And 3 trillion more (a 50% increase in debt) in his last 2 years under the Pelosi/Reid 110thCongress. In 2006 all of government spending was right around 2 trillion dollars. Pelosi/Reid swelled the budget to 3.5 trillion in their 4 years!

Barack Obama took office, and the democrat triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid went on a spending spree. The debt increased by another 5 trillion in 2 years. Under a GOP presidency with a GOP congress, after 5 years of war, our debt was 6 trillion. After 4 years of Pelosi-Reid, it is over 14 Trillion… and 5 trillion of that added in Obama’s first 2 years. Remember that it took 230 years and 42 presidents to bring our debt to 5 trillion. And the democrat triumvirate managed to raise our debt by 5 trillion in 2 years. Interest payments on the debt have more than doubled in 4 years.

Yes. Democrats own the economy.

And the downgrade?

Consider a family with a household income of $21,700 a year. They have been spending $38,200 a year and added $16,500 to their credit card balances in the last year. Their cards are at limit. They are $142,710 in debt on their cards. They sat down to make a budget, and managed to find $385 in cuts they could live with.

You’re the bank. Do you give them another loan?

Add 8 zeros to each of the numbers above. That’s our federal government.

But what about the remainder of Wasserman Schultz’ comments:

“We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery…”

There are some on the right - Mitch McConnell chief amongst them - who fear that the GOP's stance on principle against debt and taxes will backlash against them politically. They are willing to compromise so they appear to be "reasonable", and willing to work with the Democrats, as they capitulate to the further destruction of the American economy and to Obama's "Fundamental Transformation" of who and what we are as a nation.

They are pointing to the Gingrich/Clinton Showdown of late 1995 and early 1996 and the Government Shutdown, which some feel had a detrimental effect on the GOPs popularity and fortunes. But their memories are faulty and their analysis is flawed! Let's analyze the fallout from that showdown!

Please take note of the Federal Debt Chart posted.

Notice that our longest stretch WITHOUT a debt limit increase was from 96 to 2001!! Our 96 Deficit was $107 Billion and after the showdown we had surpluses till 9/11! In 2000 we had a $236 Billion surplus!

Clinton’s popularity SUFFERED during the shutdown! The press then hammered Gingrich as a “crybaby”, which his own persona fostered. GINGRICH’s PERSONAL popularity fell, but the GOP held the house for another 10 years till 2006, and the senate remained in GOP hands all that time except 2000 to 2002! And we elected BUSH in 2000.

Some folks blame Clinton’s re-election on Gingrich’s showdown at the end of 95 and beginning of 96… but Dole SUCKED as a candidate. He was the first McCain! Dole's defeat was because of DOLE!

In all, the Gingrich/Clinton showdown was extremely good for the country, and not bad for the GOP either! Gingrich HIMSELF denounces the decision not to blink, because he personally suffered a popularity drop... but his own issues contributed to that loss of popularity, not just the showdown with Clinton! Today he's barely moving the needle of presidential candidate popularity... and may run one of the shortest presidential campaigns in history! CONSERVATIVES have abandoned hom because he abandoned them! Remember his Global Warming Pow-Wow with Pelosi? He's gone squishy on a number of Conservative issues!

Some IMPORTANT differences between 1996 and today:

Our national debt in 1996 was under 4 Trillion. Today it’s 14 Trillion.

Our deficit was $107 Billion. Today it’s 1.5 TRILLION+.

Spending in 1996 was under $1.9 Trillion. Today it’s $3.4 Trillion.

In 1996, the American People were not sitting on the edge of economic Armageddon. In fact, the economy was doing well was about to rev up! The sleeping giant of American Conservatism was still asleep. While restraint of government growth was important even then... it was not on the radar of the average-joe American at the time.

Today, we are experiencing the TRUE “Worst economy since the Great Depression” and a majority of people understand it’s Obama’s policies that have worsened and extended our economic woes! Under 4 years of Pelosi/Reid we saw a TRILLION DOLLAR increase in annual spending. And ALL OF THAT was deficit spending (borrowed money)! We TRIPLED the deficit. We more than doubled the debt. In 2006 our National Debt was $6 Trillion, and that was after Bush was ROUNDLY and RIGHTLY criticized for increasing it by 50% from $4 Trillion to $6 Trillion over his first 6 years… but he had the dot-com bubble, 9/11 and two wars to contend with! Pelosi/Reid took it from $6 Trillion to $14 Trillion in 4 short years.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND THIS! They are telling Congress to CUT, CAP & BALANCE. They’re telling Congress that they OVERSPEND. They’re saying NO to Debt and Taxes!

There is NO REASON to allow political fear to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, either in the budget battle or in the 2012 elections! We are RIGHT. We must STAND for right. We must stand on principles and let the chips fall where they may politically. To the surprise of some, and the delight of most… those chips will fall in the direction of the Conservative Movement!

The United States is over $14 Trillion in debt. We’re spending over $3 Trillion a year, and of that, over $1.6 Trillion is deficit (borrowed) spending. We all know this is insanity. We are now up against the debt ceiling AGAIN, and , at least so far, the GOP is holding the line. But “compromise” is in the wind as a deluge of misinformation is constantly being pumped out of the administration. It is time to both set the record straight, and to admonish the GOP leadership, as well as its rank-and-file, that caving in to negotiate with the socialists and surrender to compromise is NOT a viable option!

We must “Just Say No!” to anything and everything the Democrats propose except draconian cuts to spending!

Say no to new taxes, tax rate hikes, new “fees” or any other action which the Dems deem “revenue enhancement”. These are doomed to fail in their intended purpose… increased revenue… and will have deleterious effect on the American People, and on the already hobbled economy.

Say no to new borrowing and increasing our already incomprehensibly irresponsible debt load. Do not accept ANY increase in the debt ceiling! It is supposed to be a “this far and no further CEILING!” Congress has raised this ceiling so often it seems to have no meaning… and both parties were guilty! Under President Bush it was raised 7 times in 8 years. (Not quite once a year.) In his first 6 years with a GOP congress, the debt went from $4 Trillion to $6 Trillion. This was a 50% increase and he came under severe and well-deserved criticism! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4486228-500803.html

But thanks to the election of November, 2006, the reigns of Congress and the keys to the coffers were handed to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. In their first 2 years, they added another $3 Trillion to the debt, taking us to $9 Trillion and a debt ceiling short of $10 Trillion when Bush left office.

The debt ceiling has only been raised 3 times so far under Obama in his short 2 and a half years… (Just over once a year) but each time it was by astronomical, multi-trillion dollar numbers!

Obama came into office with a $9 Trillion debt. It is now over $14 Trillion, meaning that in the time he’s been in office, he raised the debt by $5 Trillion, which is a Trillion more than all the debt accumulated in the first 224 years of the United States… the sum total of every administration from Washington through Clinton! Bush came into office with a debt of $4 Trillion. In his first 6 years with a GOP Congress, he added 2 Trillion, or 333 Billion a year. Obama increased our debt by $5 Trillion in his first 30 months!

The insane spending by the 110th and 111th Pelosi/Reid Congresses increased spending by more than a Trillion dollars a year. Were we NOT spending enough in 2006? (By the way, in 2006 our deficit was only $120 BILLION. Our current deficit is nearly $1.7 Trillion, almost 15 TIMES LARGER!)

Supposedly all that spending was to “stimulate the economy” that was so bad under Bush! Well, how’s that working out for you?? Obama promised that the Stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%! EPIC FAIL! Under Obama's application of the Keynesian economic model, demanding more government spending to “stimulate” the economy toward recovery… we’ve had ample demonstration of the failure of the model! All we have to show for all that “stimulus” spending is a further damaged economy, increased unemployment, increased business failures, increased foreclosures, decreased tax revenues and massive debt!

So now we come to the debt ceiling. Government is about to once again max out their credit cards.

In the real world, someone who spends 30% above their income and lives on credit to maintain their lifestyle would soon reach their credit limit. Would any responsible lending institution give them additional cards or raise their limit when they are unable to afford their CURRENT level of debt? Of course not! So why should the American People stand for their representatives in Congress voting to themselves an increase in their ability to borrow yet more?

The answer, of course, is to CUT THE SPENDING! But the Democrats refuse to believe there is any spending that deserves the axe!

Advertisement

Having increased our spending levels by 50% in just the last 4 years, what part of that CAN’T be cut? We survived 230 years as a nation without some of the new programs, departments, agencies, and projects that have been newly funded over the last 4 years! ObamaCare is a nightmarish boondoggle which the People have resoundingly rejected! It’s time for Congress to have the cojones to stand up and pass utter, complete, “as-if-it-never-occurred” repeal of that monstrosity!

The President has stated “We can’t cut our way to prosperity.” The reply should be a resounding ”YES WE CAN!” It is our spending and debt that are keeping the engine of our economy from chugging its way to growth!

The Dems have proposed the 14 Amendment as an end-around Congress for Obama to singlehandedly increase our borrowing. But in fact that very text is the rebuttal to the Dem’s “sky is falling” predictions of default if we fail to raise the debt ceiling!

Paragraph 4 of the 14thAmendment states, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Of course the Dems imply that this means we have to borrow to pay all our intended spending!

But what it DOES mean is that it would be unconstitutional for us to not pay the interest on our debt, meaning that the interest would be paid FIRST! Therefore it would be impossible to default! What we would have is a shortfall of revenue to pay all those programs, departments, agencies and projects! Of course, that shortfall would be a Trillion dollars less if we simply rolled back our spending to 2006 levels! WHAT is it that Pelosi/Reid added to our spending that we can’t live without?

The Dems are once again invoking “sky is falling” scare tactics. Much like the rhetoric that resulted in passing a useless and expensive Bailout package back in 2008, and the Stimulus of 2009; the threats of imminent collapse without more borrowing are false. We will see a great stabilization of our economy if congress REFUSES to allow further borrowing and FORCES the government to live within its means. The draconian cuts necessary will NOT hurt the population, but will indeed help them by restoring confidence which will allow the economy to grow, produce jobs, produce taxpayers and increase revenues!

Despite the “MediScare” shrieks of the left… NO GOP PROPOSAL on the table diminishes benefits to current recipients of Medicare or Social Security! And none will affect the future benefits of those 55 and older today. But to NOT address the unsustainability of these programs will insure that a few years down the road there WILL be an insolvency which WILL affect benefits to recipients at that time! We must make the hard choices now to insure viability, or that whole house of cards is sure to collapse in on itself!

Still, the Dems focus on the "revenue" side of the equation. They want to raise taxes, specifically, they want to increase taxes on the rich!

Well, that’ll get some votes from the class warriors amongst their base, but the reality is that raising tax rates does not translate into increased revenues, and in fact, LOWERING tax rates has RAISED tax revenues every time it’s been tried!

Besides that, we simply cannot meet our deficit even if we were to confiscate every single dollar earned by every person earning over $200K annually! See my prior article on that subject: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-st-louis/the-uncomfortable-truth-we-can-t-soak-the-rich-enough Doing so would not only bankrupt the employers of this nation, creating more unemployed… but would generate only $1 Trillion in additional revenue (ignore the lost revenue from those consequentially unemployed!) while our deficit is 1.7 Trillion – leaving 700 Billion shortfall EVEN THEN!

No, the answer isn’t new taxes. It CERTAINLY isn’t new borrowing. ONLY massive cuts in spending will work! We can start by rolling back the massive spending increases of the Pelosi/Reid legacy

After enduring 3 weeks of Weinergate, which had America "twittering" over weiners... and perhaps redefined the term "twitterpated" - the creative juices of my warped sense of humor were flowing. Now that we've had the final Weenie-Roast (his resignation press conference), I thought I'd post this little bit of poetic justice! I hope you find it amusing!